Rizzo v. Nichols
867 So.2d 73, 2004 WL 385334 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 667, a landowner is liable for damages caused to a neighboring property by work done on their land if they knew or should have known the work would cause damage, could have prevented it with reasonable care, and failed to exercise such care.
Facts:
- Jasper and Mary Rizzo moved into a house adjacent to a vacant lot in November 2001.
- Rainwater on the properties naturally drained across a low-lying area on the vacant lot and into the street.
- Heath Nichols purchased the vacant lot and began constructing a duplex at a higher elevation than the surrounding land.
- This construction disrupted the natural drainage, causing the Rizzos' property to flood with standing water after it rained.
- The standing water damaged a shed on the Rizzos' property and interfered with the use of their yard.
- Mr. Rizzo informed Mr. Nichols of the flooding problem on multiple occasions shortly after construction began.
- Nichols acknowledged the conversations and spoke to plumbers but took no further action to remedy the situation.
Procedural Posture:
- Jasper and Mary Rizzo filed a suit for damages against Heath Nichols in a Louisiana trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial judge found in favor of the Rizzos.
- The trial court awarded the Rizzos actual damages for repairs, as well as general damages for inconvenience and mental anguish.
- Heath Nichols, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit; the Rizzos are the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner become liable for damages under Louisiana Civil Code Article 667 for altering the natural drainage of their property when they are put on notice by their neighbor that the alteration is causing flooding and they fail to take reasonable corrective action?
Opinions:
Majority - Amy, Judge
Yes, a landowner who alters the natural drainage of their property is liable for resulting damages when they have notice of the problem and fail to take reasonable corrective action. The court found no manifest error in the trial judge's determination that Heath Nichols knew or should have known his construction activities would damage the Rizzos' property. The evidence, including Mr. Rizzo's testimony that he informed Nichols of the problem and Nichols's own admission that he took no remedial action, established that Nichols failed to exercise reasonable care as required by Louisiana Civil Code Article 667. Furthermore, testimony from the previous property owner and photographic evidence established a clear causal link between Nichols's construction and the flooding that damaged the Rizzos' property. The court affirmed the trial court's award of damages for property repair, inconvenience, and mental anguish, finding them to be within the trial court's discretion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the negligence-based standard under Louisiana Civil Code Article 667 for vicinage (neighbor) disputes. It emphasizes that 'notice' is a critical factor in determining whether a landowner exercised reasonable care. Once a property owner is informed that their activities are causing damage to a neighbor, their failure to act can satisfy the statutory requirement for liability. The decision reinforces that damages in such cases are not limited to property damage but can also include compensation for inconvenience and mental anguish resulting from the loss of enjoyment of one's property.
